ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 08-04-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Memo No. 358 dated 19.04.2012 and order dated 17.04.2012 passed by the respondent no. 9 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner has died on 31.10.1998 in service period leaving behind the petitioner only and the petitioner was the only daughter of the deceased and also mother of the petitioner had already died in the year 1984 itself during the lifetime of the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for her compassionate appointment in the month of November, 1991 through the proper channel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of birth of the petitioner was 09.01.1977 and on the date of the application of her compassionate appointment the petitioner was minor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Board has rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Letter No. 306 dated 03.06.1998 on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was not made within the stipulated period as mentioned in the circular.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Standing Order No. 756 dated 18.02.1994 of the Board, the petitioner had made her application for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period of time of five years but the same was rejected by the competent authority of the Board and then the petitioner had moved before this Court in CWJC No. 10562 of 1998 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.01.2000 with a direction to the authority of the Board to consider the application of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment in light of the Circular dated 18.02.1994.

5. Despite of the direction of the Hon’ble Court, the Board has not considered the claim of the petitioner and then the petitioner filed contempt petition bearing MJC No. 3026 of 2000 and in the meantime the Board has also filed a Civil Review No. 71 of 2000 for reviewing of the order/judgment dated 28.01.2000. The said MJC was also dismissed on 03.02.2003 and the Civil Review No. 71 of 2000 which was filed by the Board also dismissed on 01.07.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has again filed his application in the light of the order dated 28.01.2000 passed in CWJC No. 10562 of 1998 with a request to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Board had not taken a decision with respect to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner then the petitioner had again filed a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 3684 of 2011 and during the period of aforesaid contempt petition, the Board has also filed a show cause annexing an order dated 17.04.2012 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the Board. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that when the father of the petitioner was died the petitioner was minor and it appears from the record itself the petitioner has got marriage in the year 1999 itself prior to attaining her majority age and hence in pursuance of the provisions of the standing order no. 756 dated 18.02.1994, the petitioner will not come in the category of dependent of the deceased employee and hence she is not entitled for her compassionate appointment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy Vs. State of Orissa, reported in AIR 2022 SUPREME COURT 2836, referring to paragraph nos. 7 and 8 which are as follows :-

“7. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at all